Estimating the Importance of Differential Item Functioning

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 31-45

  Rudas, Tamás ^a,b   Zwick, Rebecca ^c  

^a CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

^b Social Science Informatics Center   (Hungary)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Mantel Haenszel test; Maximum likelihood estimation; Mixture index of fit

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031528353     PISSN: 10769986     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/10769986022001031     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
2. Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models. In F. Lord & M. Novick (Eds.), Statistical theories of mental test scores (pp. 397-479). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Camilli, G., & Shepard, L. A. (1994). Methods for identifying biased test items. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Chang, H.-H., Mazzeo, J., & Roussos, L. (1995). Detecting DIF for polytomously scored items: An adaptation of the SIBTEST procedure. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 333-353.
5. Clogg, C. C. (1981). Latent structure models of mobility. American Journal of Sociology. 86, 836-868.
6. Clogg, C. C., Rudas, T., & Xi, L. (1995). A new index of structure for the analysis of models for mobility tables and other cross-classifications. In P. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 197-222). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
7. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 1-22.
8. Donoghue, J. R., & Allen, N. L. (1993). Thin versus thick matching in the Mantel-Haenszel procedure for detecting DIF. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 131-154.
9. Goodman, L. A. (1979). Simple models for the analysis of cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 537-552.
10. Holland, P. W. (1985). On the study of differential item performance without IRT. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association, 1, 282-287.
11. Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1988). Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 129-145). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (Eds.). (1993). Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
14. Mellenbergh, G. J. (1982). Contingency table models for assessing item bias. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 105-118.
15. Phillips, A., & Holland, P. W. (1987). Estimation of the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel log-odds-ratio estimate. Biometrics, 43, 425-431.
16. Roussos, L. A., & Stout, W. F. (1996). Simulation studies of effects of small sample size and studied item parameters on SIBTEST and Mantel-Haenszel Type I error performance. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 215-230.
17. Rudas, T. (1991). Prescribed conditional interaction structure models with application to the analysis of mobility tables. Quality and Quantity, 25, 345-358.
18. Rudas, T., Clogg, C. C., & Lindsay, B. G. (1994). A new index of fit based on mixture methods for the analysis of contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 54, 623-640.
19. Rudas, T., & Leimer, G.-H. (1992). Analysis of contingency tables with known conditional odds ratios or known log-linear parameters. In P. G. M. van der Heijden, W. Jansen, B. Francis, & G. U. H. Seeber (Eds.), Statistical modelling (pp. 313-322). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
20. Shealy, R., & Stout, W. (1993). A model-based standardization approach that separates true bias/DIF from group ability differences and detects test bias/DIF as well as item bias/DIF. Psychometrika, 58, 159-194.
21. Zieky, M. (1993). Practical questions in the use of DIF statistics in test development. In P. W. Holland & H. Wainer (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 337-347). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Zwick, R. (1990). When do item response function and Mantel-Haenszel definitions of differential item functioning coincide? Journal of Educational Statistics, 15, 185-197
23. Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993a). Assessing differential item functioning in performance tests (Research Rep. No. 93-14). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
24. Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993b). Assessment of differential item functioning for performance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.
25. Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 187-201.
26. Zwick, R., Thayer, D. T., & Wingersky, M. (1994). A simulation study of the methods for assessing differential item functioning in computerized adaptive tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 121-140.